75098 Assault on Hoth

[bjorkan]

I am absolutely sure - Lego knows that ultimate collectors will always have the money m.

[bootz]

That's one half of the problem. The other is that webforum LEGO fans always know EXACTLY how TLG should have designed something, and if TLG went a different way then it is clearly a bad set, right? Right?! And too expensive, with the wrong minifigures, too many stickers ... but all this goes without saying anyway.

Then you have the typical dynamic of QQ threads with the tendency to attract more entitled little whiners who love to see their sentiments echoed page after page, and hate nothing more than to be suddenly called out on their unqualified one-liner comments (most in the ballpark of "the clouds are .. too cloudy! Epic fail").

My personal favorites were those two people posting pictures of other Hoth builds, one a chunk of white bricks looking nothing like a LEGO set, the other some microbuild diorama - that's not even apples and oranges, not even close.

Nah, people have their precious opinions, and they can keep them. I'm glad the set is not larger, because I do not want to pay premium licensed set-prices on two buckets full of white basic bricks for the epic snowscape some rich people here seem to be expecting.

I'm going to wait for reviews from qualified people who have the actual set ON HAND and know what they are talking about.

You're clearly still missing the point, and just want to attack those who raised valid points regarding their disappointment with the set. A UCS set should at the very least challenger the experienced builder, but what little new we got looks fairly basic, and the rest we've literally build already. They used the same Snowspeeder we've has for years, where n is the fun in building the same thing we got in 2014? The figs included are all nice figs, but they're minor characters aside from Han(who was recently a polybag) and Luke. The exclusion of Leia is puzzling unless she is the May the Fourth polybag and there aren't as many Snowtroopers as one could reasonably expect in a set called "Assault on Hoth".

The issue with this set is branding and pricing, not high expectations from whiny AFOLs. We didn't expect a 10k piece diorama, but we did expect something up to UCS standards, which this does not appear to be. Given the general consensus is that the set is underwhelming, clearly something is amiss.

[Beckmesser]

I've never understood the argument that a person is "entitled" for not liking a product. It's not like TLG is handing us this set on a silver platter, we have to consider paying for this, out of money we've had to work for. Shouldn't we be able to say if we think the quality isn't up to par? Are reviewers, critics, etc. "entitled" too?

It is neither the "like" nor the "dislike" for anything that earns the "entitled" status. It's the strong expectation that something absolutely has to be tailored to YOUR LIKING - even if the item in question is a toy for slightly older kids (what was it, 12+?) and the holders of negative opinion are mostly older folks with every Star Wars set dating back to 1999 at home already.

So you have most of this already in some form? Good for you! So do I. I'm probably still going to buy the set to stay complete.

What I find slightly annoying is the smugness some are trying to pass off their failed expectations with as a quality problem at TLG and defect in the set ("4-in-1 pack" comes to mind).

We didn't get what we want, so let's trash this!

Entitlement.

[anothergol]

Where has Lego used the UCS label on this one btw? Isn't it just that people were wrongly expecting a UCS and not a playset?

[bootz]

But it is almost literally just a redesign of sets and vehicles we already have, in some cases they're virtually identical. Again, why would it be unreasonable to expect better than rehashes of older sets for $250? How is that entitlement? Because we expect better of something carrying this name and price tag?

Where has Lego used the UCS label on this one btw? Isn't it just that people were wrongly expecting a UCS and not a playset?

Bottom left corner.

[Beckmesser]

(...) we did expect something up to UCS standards, which this does not appear to be. Given the general consensus is that the set is underwhelming, clearly something is amiss.

Well, I can see and agree that Hoth is no match for a UCS X-Wing, but isn't it up to TLG to define what qualifies as "UCS"?

"Utterly Complex Set" is what AFOLs think it should mean, whereas TLG seems to focus more on the "collectable" aspect (whatever that means) from a time when we got that tiny, hyperexpensive silver Naboo Starfighter.

Granted, with Hoth their marketing went a bit too creative in an almost comical way, that didn't help :D

[anothergol]

Bottom left corner.

Ah, my bad.

Makes no sense to me, it's not even the kind of set that can be UCS in a manageable part count. To me, collector means adult. And an adult doesn't want a playset, he wants something for display, something that isn't exaggerating the structure for solidity, and reducing the detail along with part count. How does a collector need/want play features?

whereas TLG seems to focus more on the "collectable" aspect (whatever that means)

Well, a collector isn't a kid, that's for sure.

So a toy designed for kids, and bought by collectors, I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense - it does. But collectors collect 2 things: toys that were designed for kids (that they generally keep in box), and detailed, expensive things (statues, props), designed for collectors, that have display value.

So in any case Lego got it wrong, releasing a playset designed for kids, but claiming it's for collectors.

But it's the theme that's wrong for an UCS anyway. Something for collectors should have the quality of a good MOC, and how would you get a good battle on Hoth display set at a manageable price, when even the toy version of an AT-AT has over 1000 parts...

Edited February 16, 2016 by anothergol

[bootz]

Well, I can see and agree that Hoth is no match for a UCS X-Wing, but isn't it up to TLG to define what qualifies as "UCS"?

"Utterly Complex Set" is what AFOLs think it should mean, whereas TLG seems to focus more on the "collectable" aspect (whatever that means) from a time when we got that tiny, hyperexpensive silver Naboo Starfighter.

Granted, with Hoth their marketing went a bit too creative in an almost comical way, that didn't help :D

I expect a bit of challenge in the build though, as it should be for ultimate collectors. You are right, in that Lego ultimately decides what UCS means, but this is certainly a downgrade from what we've come to expect. A new snowspeeder design would have been great, and a point of pride for the designers, who instead had to include the same old design(spring shooters aren't much of an update).

Full disclosure, my only UCS set is in a box, waiting to be sold and the money spent on another set. But to me this seems like a case of mis-branding. To me there isn't enough new, unique, or challenging enough to constitute a UCS.

In regards to anothergol's comments, the Death Star and Ewok Village proved that playsets can work as UCS sets and as display pieces. I have no issue with playsets, and I regret not getting the DS, but they didn't seem to prioritize play over design/display like this does.

I really think this is a missed opportunity to call it a Super Battlepack and elevate that brand. Just imagine a series of battle playsets a step under the UCS series. Then the downsized elements and inclusion of old designs would be appropriate and more desireable.

[anothergol]

In regards to anothergol's comments, the Death Star and Ewok Village proved that playsets can work as UCS sets and as display pieces. I have no issue with playsets, and I regret not getting the DS, but they didn't seem to prioritize play over design/display like this does.

mmh, but the Death Star & Ewok Village don't have that UCS tag, and I consider them big playsets as well. This set is pretty much the same thing as the Ewok Village IMHO (which I got and haven't built yet, because the end result is not very collector-friendly, with parts all over the place, instead of 1 big solid thing that you can display).

The Death Star got its UCS as well (10143), with zero play feature, and that one was in the right spirit. A kid wouldn't want it.

To sum up, to me the difference is this: if you have a set for display, an adult who isn't into Lego (& let's be honest, we're not the norm) comes in and thinks that the kid left his toys in the room, it's not an UCS. If the set can pass for an interesting piece of art on a desk, then it is. In that way, I consider the Architecture line an adult line, for collectors - only missing the U in UCS.

Personally I could care less about the building challenge - that's more what Technic & Mindstorm is about.

Edited February 16, 2016 by anothergol

[bootz]

Hmm, I'd assumed they were UCS. That makes this even more puzzling as a UCS set.

And the Ewok Village looks to be a fine display piece. It's mostly the figs that are loose but they have plenty of places to stand.

[anothergol]

I don't know, there's junk around it (speeder bike, catapult), I already know that when I'll get it built, I won't know where to put it - and it'll be of the first sets I will steal parts from.

Of course we're all partly kids as well, I've bought more play sets than serious, boring Lego stuff.

[Beckmesser]

So it is foremost a matter of miscommunication/branding by TLG? All the builds seems to be in line with typical smaller Star Wars sets, there are just more of them. The function of the big gate could be interesting, although it's probably not much of a building challenge as well. I have problems imagining how TLG could have turned an icy wasteland and a hangar cut from ice into a challenging build ...

However, there's still the matter of people justifying their dislike with utter nonsense, like terribly missing an AT-ST. There are no AT-STs on Hoth, their brief appearance was only due to Lucas´ tinkering with an almost finished movie by keeping ILM on their toes, adding details.

[anothergol]

However, there's still the matter of people justifying their dislike with utter nonsense, like terribly missing an AT-ST. There are no AT-STs on Hoth, their brief appearance was only due to Lucas´ tinkering with an almost finished movie by keeping ILM on their toes, adding details.

I'm no SW fan at all, but that's not what I read. Quoting the IMDB:

More scenes of the AT-ST Imperial "chicken walkers" were filmed, but George Lucas decided that the larger AT-ATs were more menacing and impressive. He later realized that the AT-STs would work better in close quarters, which led to using them extensively in the forest battle in Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi

Besides, you can't name a set "assault on Hoth" and feature nothing that assaults except 2 minifigs.

[naf]

...

I think the designer was trying to appease a wide audience but seemingly has failed the AFOL audience who pay for the large priced sets. Most parents I don't see buying this for their kids. I see them all the time at the department stores, even when I used to work in retail, and they usually purchase smaller or mid range sets. Usually the first words out of their mouth is that its too expensive. I really hope TLG reads through this topic and understand that AFOLs (with and without children) not kids are the ones generating the profits for the past five years. More and more adults are tuning into LEGO products because of nostalgia or the influence from their children. There is a generational cycle at play and that is what driving their sales.

I think AFOLs over-estimate their contribution to Lego's bottom line. AFOLs buying $200+ sets directly from Lego are a drop in the bucket compared to how much they sell out of Target, TRU, etc throughout the year, and especially at Christmas. The big failure with this particular set is the fact that it appeases no one. It's very underwhelming for adults, as it's essentially an repack of old sets. Nothing to get excited about. I know people who went down to the Lego Store on day when when Ewok Village and the Sandcrawler were released. I doubt this set will get that kind of response. It's a great playset for kids, but no one but the wealthiest parents will be able to afford it. Even if they could, kids still might gravitate towards the Airjitsu Temple or some of the larger sets from Star Wars Rebels since they watch it on TV.

Those are all reasons why you personally like the Ewok Village more than Assault on Hoth. That doesn't make Assault on Hoth a ripoff.

It's not a rip-off from a pure price-per-piece standpoint, but Lego is asking quite a premium for a sets that we've already seen in the very recent past. Add to that the fact that they slapped the UCS label on it, and feels like Lego is trying to get AFOLs to buy into it without having to spend much money and effort in the design. If we as a group don't buy it, and it sits on shelves collecting dust, then it might go the way of the B-Wing and drop down to 50% for May 4.

I'm no SW fan at all, but that's not what I read. Quoting the IMDB:

More scenes of the AT-ST Imperial "chicken walkers" were filmed, but George Lucas decided that the larger AT-ATs were more menacing and impressive. He later realized that the AT-STs would work better in close quarters, which led to using them extensively in the forest battle in Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi

Besides, you can't name a set "assault on Hoth" and feature nothing that assaults except 2 minifigs.

Exactly. I completely understand that they couldn't fit an AT-AT in with this set, but they could have scapped the Wampa Cave and added an AT-ST and a probe droid. If this was meant to be a one stop Hoth shop, I don't understand why the probe droid, chewie (make him a snowy Hoth variant), and Leia were not included.

Edited February 16, 2016 by naf

[bountybossk]

I still can't understand Lego's thinking on this.

I've been looking at the set for multiple times in the past few days and I think I'm starting to understand it a bit more. If you wanted to make a detailed set that included most of the important components of Echo base (blast doors, ion cannon, shield generator, trenches, control room) with less than 2200 pieces, it will always look something like this. Even if you left out the snowspeeder, the crane part and the Wampa cave, it would still look rather small. Echo base just consists of too many (separate) big components to properly recreate with 2200 pieces.

Yet, I still think they should've made a few small changes that would make the set far more desirable in my opinion:

- Include Leia and a version of Chewbacca covered in bits of snow (probably the only reason not to include Hoth Leia is that she'll be in the May 4th polybag)

- Include a dark blue jacket Han Solo instead of a previously released Han fig

- Include brand new rebel pilot helmet with the transparent visor molded into the helmet (like the Resistance pilot helmets)

- Include a brand new (accurate) snowspeeder canopy

Without an AT-ST and a few more stormtroopers there just doesn't seem to be much to do.

LEGO will release a new AT-ST with the Rogue One wave.

[Beckmesser]

By Vader's foul breath, don't quote IMDB internet nonsense. The "chicken-walker" was a pet project of some ILM guys who built the walker on the weekends and then showed it to Lucas.

"Indeed, though practically out of time, Lucas ( ... and his ILM gang ...) were able to add the chicken walker to the mix. Muren: 'It's just in two background out-of-focus shots, marching along. It's a throwaway thing'" (source: The Making of The Empire Strikes Back, page 310)

[bootz]

By Vader's foul breath, don't quote IMDB internet nonsense. The "chicken-walker" was a pet project of some ILM guys who built the walker on the weekends and then showed it to Lucas.

"Indeed, though practically out of time, Lucas ( ... and his ILM gang ...) were able to add the chicken walker to the mix. Muren: 'It's just in two background out-of-focus shots, marching along. It's a throwaway thing'" (source: The Making of The Empire Strikes Back, page 310)

Regardless, it would have made the set more of a legitimate assault, whereas an AT-AT would have jacked the price up significantly. Though it would have been interesting if they did a slightly smaller scale AT-AT for this, similar to the TIE Advanced in the Death Star.

And I fully understand the point that there are only so many ways to build Echo Base, but spring shooters and flick fires should have no place in a UCS set.

[Schneeds]

There are no AT-STs on Hoth, their brief appearance was only due to Lucas´ tinkering with an almost finished movie by keeping ILM on their toes, adding details.

That doesn't even make sense. Lucas is the creator of Star Wars so if he wanted something in the movie, then it should and would be in the movie; it's not some fluke. Pretty sure he's more of an authority on this than you are.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Schneeds

[L E G O]

By Vader's foul breath, don't quote IMDB internet nonsense. The "chicken-walker" was a pet project of some ILM guys who built the walker on the weekends and then showed it to Lucas.

"Indeed, though practically out of time, Lucas ( ... and his ILM gang ...) were able to add the chicken walker to the mix. Muren: 'It's just in two background out-of-focus shots, marching along. It's a throwaway thing'" (source: The Making of The Empire Strikes Back, page 310)

Let's not feed this troll, then he'll get bored and go back to Facebook.

[Hinckley]

Play nice! Don't make me turn this car around...

[ChiefPie]

I'll probably bricklink the important minifigs from this set. Hopefully the Death Star UCS will be the full covered Death Star with minifigs. The sets nice but not the price.

[Sion]

A UCS rebel transport ship would be far better than this.

Also this so-called "assault" could be fought off by the wampa.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Sion

[Japanbuilder]

Why did they not increase the price to $350 and just include the AT-AT from last year or AT-ST? I would rather pay $100 dollars more if that meant we got five more figures unique and available only to this set as well as more of a base or Imperial assault?

Imagine if you will this as well as an extended base of batch/medical room, real control center, some tunnels, larger shield generator, an AT-ST, and five additional minifigures (Leia, Medical droid, snowy chewbacca, AT-ST Pilot, and another Snowtrooper) for $100 dollars more? Chances are if you're willing to pay $250 for this you would be willing to pay $350 if that meant it came with some kickass additional features. Immediately most of our problems with the set would disappear.

Phrased this way, I think that is a good argument. I would gladly have the cave removed and converted into the final disc assembly needed by the shield generator and the left over bits converted into at least 2 more snow troopers or even one Darth Vader. Adding that and upping the vehicles and figure count and room count as you stated would totally be worth the 350 for me if I had them.

[Pointblank]

I think AFOLs over-estimate their contribution to Lego's bottom line.

While the math suggests so, we are forgetting a lot of residual effect of UCS loving AFOLs. For many AFOLs who buy UCS, I believe a majority of them

1) Buy other Lego Star Wars sets as well. A UCS is more display, the system scale are just bolts on (or the occassional swoosh). Lego Star Wars is probably the most profitable theme in TLG.

2) Returned from the dark ages, and can be attributed to having children of Lego playing age. The children will be influenced to buy more, and buying decisions will be easier if the parents are AFOLs themselves. AFOLs tend to be more affluent, which also implies they have the ability to acquire for their kids as well.

3) Use UCS as an excuse to collect/build lego, display "toys" or relive a childhood. If the UCS name detoriates to nothing more of a playset, I am inclined to believe that AFOLs will simply lose interest because it is not as displayable to standards. UCS displays have a soft marketing ability for Lego.

I am not saying because of this set, I am going to stop getting UCS, hell no, but criticisms must be given when its due, and not giving excuses to what appears to be a very average set. Constructive criticism must be given for TLG to lift or maintain their game. It is the passion for UCS that a lot of us are criticizing TLG. I am not going at them with pitch forks. End of the day, they will get the idea if it doesn't sell nearly as well, but till then, it in the hope of many AFOLs and fear(of not) that the next UCS will be of a standard of yesteryears.

Well, I can see and agree that Hoth is no match for a UCS X-Wing, but isn't it up to TLG to define what qualifies as "UCS"?

"Utterly Complex Set" is what AFOLs think it should mean, whereas TLG seems to focus more on the "collectable" aspect (whatever that means) from a time when we got that tiny, hyperexpensive silver Naboo Starfighter.

Yes, its up to TLG. Agreed :)

AFOLs believe in the collectable more than the complex IMO. There are several UCS sets that are not really complex, but can be tedious to build, but the results have been mostly amazing.

In the case of UCS vehicles, there was always the size and detail. In other sets, its always the build technique, unique printed parts and how it captures the scenes (like EV and Death Star 10188, which are incidentally not official UCS :P ). In this set, it has not much of either. If I were to put some of the older system scale sets together, and do a quick DIY on the generator and ion cannon, it will be fairly hard to tell them apart from a distance.

The naboo starfighter, I don't have it, is one of the poorer UCS, but has fairly unique parts that have not been repeated since. At that time, there was only one Naboo Starfighter previously made, and TLG hasn't really caught on yet with Star Wars. Granted as well, PT sets generally have less appeal as well, hence the aftermarket demand is less, which I suppose the criticisms have been less. Since then, 10030 (and then 10179 )made all the rage happen. :)

Edited February 17, 2016 by Pointblank

[faire]

I am VERY glad to see more substantial discussion.

Lego obviously made a risk: UCS is a premium trademark that justifies higher price (enabling LEGO to sell a larger set). Most of the income is coming from parents, not AFOLs. The set is VERY obviously targeted at parents - lots of play features, not overly complicated to build. In this way it makes sense to make it a rehash of previously made sets - R'n'D costs go down, lots of parents have never bought the sets and were caught by the Episode VII wave. Which I have no doubt had enormous influence by drawing new audience in - including a (ta-da) lot of parents. TLG might have known the AFOLs will not really by satisfied but taken that as an opportunity cost.

So there are two problems here: first, people on this forum are not intended audience and their opinions will not reflect the revenues / costs ratio very much.

Second, LEGO did something unfair. They used an established trade mark and changed its content without prior warning to make money. That's serious miscommunication and somewhat mistreatment of the AFOLs - and it's completely fine to communicate that. LEGO should care about the AFOLs - not because they would make a big part of revenues, but because of their fidelity and influence.

Edited February 17, 2016 by faire